PDA

View Full Version : How much total time have you wasted on Windows?



brawnypandora0
July 15th, 2011, 05:41 AM
By wasted I mean the time you've spent in your life reinstalling things after a format, running antiviruses, system slowdowns and so forth that is unique to Windows and not Linux for the same computer.

I ask this because I'm amazed at the days accumulated just by using web accelerators. I think when we're talking about all this wasted Windows time, might some older users have wasted a year of their lives?

Snowboi
July 15th, 2011, 05:44 AM
By wasted I mean the time you've spent in your life reinstalling things after a format, running antiviruses, system slowdowns and so forth that is unique to Windows and not Linux for the same computer.

I ask this because I'm amazed at the days accumulated just by using web accelerators. I think when we're talking about all this wasted Windows time, might some older users have wasted a year or two?

It feels like iv wasted tons, but without windows id never find linux.

Famicube64
July 15th, 2011, 05:47 AM
Less than I would have spent reinstalling Ubuntu every six months.

Snowboi
July 15th, 2011, 05:50 AM
Less than I would have spent reinstalling Ubuntu every six months.

You don't need to "reinstall"
you can just upgrade using the terminal :lolflag:

Famicube64
July 15th, 2011, 05:51 AM
You don't need to "reinstall"
you can just upgrade using the terminal :lolflag:
Yeah, see how well that works out four releases down the line.

Legendary_Bibo
July 15th, 2011, 05:52 AM
0 because Windows just works.

foxmulder881
July 15th, 2011, 05:53 AM
Actually I don't find Windows succeeds any better at this than Linux.

A fresh install is always best.

Regarding the original question; too much time to calculate.

Quadunit404
July 15th, 2011, 05:53 AM
0 because Windows just works.

Same.

Famicube64
July 15th, 2011, 05:54 AM
Actually I don't find Windows succeeds any better at this than Linux.

A fresh install is always best.

Regarding the original question; too much time to calculate.
This. Upgrades are horrid.

Snowboi
July 15th, 2011, 05:54 AM
Yeah, see how well that works out four releases down the line.

Haven't been using ubuntu for 4 releases yet, :popcorn:
Don't get what your talking about :confused: either way they don't come out with a new release ever 6 months its one in which you can upgrade to.



0 because Windows just works.


Anti-viruses slow your computer down =/, im preety sure you have used an antivirus.

Famicube64
July 15th, 2011, 05:58 AM
Haven't been using ubuntu for 4 releases yet, :popcorn:
Don't get what your talking about :confused: either way they don't come out with a new release ever 6 months its one in which you can upgrade to.
Ubuntu has a six month release cycle. :P Except for LTS releases. Whether you upgrade or do a fresh install, there's still a new version every six months. And old versions tend to not fair so well with newer software, so basically you're forced to upgrade if you want modern software. Windows doesn't usually have this problem, take XP as a prime example. If Ubuntu would just buckle down and really put some work into a release every 2-4 years this wouldn't be as much of an issue.

Legendary_Bibo
July 15th, 2011, 06:00 AM
Haven't been using ubuntu for 4 releases yet, :popcorn:
Don't get what your talking about :confused: either way they don't come out with a new release ever 6 months its one in which you can upgrade to.



Anti-viruses slow your computer down =/, im preety sure you have used an antivirus.

I don't use an AV. Windows security essentials and common sense is all I need.

Snowboi
July 15th, 2011, 06:04 AM
Ubuntu has a six month release cycle. :P Except for LTS releases. Whether you upgrade or do a fresh install, there's still a new version every six months. And old versions tend to not fair so well with newer software, so basically you're forced to upgrade if you want modern software. Windows doesn't usually have this problem, take XP as a prime example. If Ubuntu would just buckle down and really put some work into a release every 2-4 years this wouldn't be as much of an issue.

I dunno, more progress seems to be done when releases are pushed that way every six months there is more user feedback about the operating system, take for example the new unity interface released with 11.04, canonical learned a lot from the users who tested 11.04 and are going to take this feedback into 11.10. I personally find this as a step towards progress. Many applications when i switched seemed to work either flawlessly or with few configuration.



I don't use an AV. Windows security essentials and common sense is all I need.

Alright how about the amount of time needed to defragment your computer, this is time consuming and if you don't defragment then it slows down your overall performance.

Witch Lady
July 15th, 2011, 06:05 AM
xfire says that about 100 days ;)

Yeah, I know it's not the answer to your question... but I don't like your biased question.

Sure, Windows wasn't always running as best as I wanted it, but Ubuntu either. For example: problems with display, lacking of close/minimise buttons on menus, and since I'm quite new to Linux looking for every solution on the net, adds a lot of time on the Ubuntu side.

Of course time wasted on Windows would be much higher, cause I use it for 15 years, and Linux for like 1,5 year... but... Don't say that Ubuntu/Linux don't have it's own problems which waste your time.

Quadunit404
July 15th, 2011, 06:08 AM
Anti-viruses slow your computer down =/, im preety sure you have used an antivirus.

I use ESET Smart Security 4 and my laptop is very, VERY powerful. I know I am not the one you were replying to, but still. Right now ESET is using 52MB of my RAM and I have 4GB total. That's NOTHING. I'm not experiencing any slowdown whatsoever, but that might be because this laptop is so powerful all my irl friends are jealous of it :lolflag:

Hell I rarely defragment and Windows boots in only 12 seconds.

OP: Ever heard of something called "research"? I recommend you look into it. Not every PC out there experiences the same issues you describe.

KiwiNZ
July 15th, 2011, 06:08 AM
By wasted I mean the time you've spent in your life reinstalling things after a format, running antiviruses, system slowdowns and so forth that is unique to Windows and not Linux for the same computer.

I ask this because I'm amazed at the days accumulated just by using web accelerators. I think when we're talking about all this wasted Windows time, might some older users have wasted a year of their lives?

And you don't have reinstall Apps in Linux after a clean reinstall of the OS????????
AV's run in the background, seldom cost me anytime.

Slowdowns unique to Windows??? yeah right.

Snowboi
July 15th, 2011, 06:12 AM
I use ESET Smart Security 4 and my laptop is very, VERY powerful. I know I am not the one you were replying to, but still. Right now ESET is using 52MB of my RAM and I have 4GB total. That's NOTHING. I'm not experiencing any slowdown whatsoever, but that might be because this laptop is so powerful all my irl friends are jealous of it :lolflag:

Hell I rarely defragment and Windows boots in only 12 seconds.

OP: Ever heard of something called "research"? I recommend you look into it. Not every PC out there experiences the same issues you describe.

I know, this is my opinion on my previous windows experience.

Regardless of operating system, you waste time doing one thing or another.

Anti-viruses affect older computers much more then newer ones, this thread asks in total the amount of time spent "wasted" using windows (no other operating system) since you first started using windows. An anti virus MAY not only have high memory usage but it may require time to startup, or update the database.

ninjaaron
July 15th, 2011, 06:21 AM
By wasted I mean the time you've spent in your life reinstalling things after a format.

I've spent more time doing this on Linux than I have doing anything on Windows. It's partially choice, but still. The only thing really awful for time on Windows was defragmenting. On Linux, the awful thing is living with bugs until you track down the fix (possibly to find out in the end that there is no fix).

But over all Windows is fine, Linux is fine, and OSX is above average (I just can't stand the way they limit user options, and the behavior of the typical apple user drives me nuts).

pommie
July 15th, 2011, 06:21 AM
About the same amount of time I spend waiting for usb 10gig transfers of less than 3MBps in Ubuntu.
Its quicker for me to fire up my wifes Win7 laptop, transfer the file to it over wireless, then to usb from hers.
Also when I want a hi-res scan I have to scan using her Win7 lappy then transfer the file to mine, as the good scanner (Canoscan Lide70) doesn't work with Ubuntu, just the crappy one in the all in one :(

So as I could let the virus/trojan/rootkit scanners and defrag, do their thing overnight while I am asleep, all in all I would say I waste more time with Linux than I ever did with Windows XP, I do not use Win7 except for the above mentioned reasons.

Cheers David

ilovelinux33467
July 15th, 2011, 06:24 AM
0 because Windows just works.

This.

TheNosh
July 15th, 2011, 06:27 AM
The EXT file systems do fragment. It takes a while longer, but it happens, and once it does, there's no common and obvious tool to de-fragment it. At least windows has the tool to fix the problem.

There are tools out there, but they aren't as friendly, and I don't now of any distro that comes with one installed.

Kusano
July 15th, 2011, 06:40 AM
I wouldn't say wasted. Without Windows, I would have never discovered Ubuntu. I still use both for different purposes. :D

Dustin2128
July 15th, 2011, 07:01 AM
0 because Windows just works.
Hm, nice theory.

ctrlmd
July 15th, 2011, 07:07 AM
haven't formated for 1 year and 2 months and don't think i need to
win7 x64

msandoy
July 15th, 2011, 07:09 AM
Since the beginning of windows, and windows became popular with windows 3.0, I have wasted at least a year, waiting for updates, reboots, virus scans and installations. But, then again, I would never have become so frustrated that I started looking for something better if it was not for these long hours of waiting.

An for Famicube64, If you have a separate root partition and home partition, a fresh install takes about 20 minutes plus adding the extra programs you use. My windows has to be reinstalled about once a year, despite all the maintenance(Because I do alot of program testing.) and this process takes a full working day every time.

TheNosh
July 15th, 2011, 08:04 AM
windows has to be reinstalled about once a year, despite all the maintenance(Because I do alot of program testing.) and this process takes a full working day every time.
this process takes a full working day every time.

You're doing it wrong. Or you have serious hardware issues. Installing Windows has never taken me more than half an hour. It certainly shouldn't take a whole working day.

Dustin2128
July 15th, 2011, 08:09 AM
You're doing it wrong. Or you have serious hardware issues. Installing Windows has never taken me more than half an hour. It certainly shouldn't take a whole working day.
Install, restore from backups, and reconfigure? Certainly a day for someone who can't do windows shell scripting. As if it were a real thing ;)

Spice Weasel
July 15th, 2011, 08:13 AM
Zero. I've wasted a lot of time configuring and customizing **** on Linux however.

Dustin2128
July 15th, 2011, 08:16 AM
Zero. I've wasted a lot of time configuring and customizing **** on Linux however.
If you call that time wasted :D

KiwiNZ
July 15th, 2011, 08:18 AM
A day to reinstall Windows etc. Either you are doing things very wrong, using a 386 or it's BS.

If support staff I managed took that long their tenure would have been very short.

Spice Weasel
July 15th, 2011, 08:18 AM
If you call that time wasted :D

I've spent so much time trying to be productive that I haven't got any work done!

msandoy
July 15th, 2011, 08:32 AM
A day to reinstall Windows etc. Either you are doing things very wrong, using a 386 or it's BS.

If support staff I managed took that long their tenure would have been very short.

If I had a vanilla DELL computer with Intel chipset and Intel graphics, and I only used Office and windows mail, It would take about half an hour to install. Meaning a standard office computer in a company.

My personal computer is not vanilla at all, I do not have a RIS server in my home network, my windows DVD does not have the service packs, I have to download them and install them, when everything is up to date, I have to start adding all the personalized items I use.

So KiwiNZ, for a person only using defaults on vanilla HW, you probably only need 20 minutes.

TheNosh
July 15th, 2011, 08:34 AM
Install, restore from backups, and reconfigure? Certainly a day for someone who can't do windows shell scripting. As if it were a real thing ;)

Seriously?

The first install will take a bit of time (Still shouldn't take a day), but if you do it right, any reinstalling should be quick and painless.

1)Install Windows.
2)Set up windows settings as you like.
3)Create a backup of the drive image.
4)Put your data on a separate partition or drive.

If you ever need to reinstall, just reload that image and update it. No fussing with data files needed. Takes like no time.

Even if you do have all your data on the same drive as your OS, it still shouldn't take anywhere near a day.

KiwiNZ
July 15th, 2011, 08:36 AM
If I had a vanilla DELL computer with Intel chipset and Intel graphics, and I only used Office and windows mail, It would take about half an hour to install. Meaning a standard office computer in a company.

My personal computer is not vanilla at all, I do not have a RIS server in my home network, my windows DVD does not have the service packs, I have to download them and install them, when everything is up to date, I have to start adding all the personalized items I use.

So KiwiNZ, for a person only using defaults on vanilla HW, you probably only need 20 minutes.

I can assure you my computers are long way less than "vanilla".

Dustin2128
July 15th, 2011, 08:45 AM
Seriously?

The first install will take a bit of time (Still shouldn't take a day), but if you do it right, any reinstalling should be quick and painless.

1)Install Windows.
2)Set up windows settings as you like.
3)Create a backup of the drive image.
4)Put your data on a separate partition or drive.

If you ever need to reinstall, just reload that image and update it. No fussing with data files needed. Takes like no time.

Even if you do have all your data on the same drive as your OS, it still shouldn't take anywhere near a day.
I see you've never encountered upgrade syndrome.
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/success.png
I've installed more copies of XP than I care to recount, vista once or twice. None were as easy as ubuntu, or even slackware. But I am several orders of magnitude more 1337 than when I used windows, so maybe it was incompetence.

zirkoni
July 15th, 2011, 10:01 AM
By wasted I mean the time you've spent in your life reinstalling things after a format, running antiviruses, system slowdowns and so forth that is unique to Windows and not Linux for the same computer.

0 days, 0 hours, 0 minutes, 0 seconds
and I have used Windows since 1994. Although I upgraded from DOS/Win3.11 to Vista in 2007 and later to Windows 7.

ninjaaron
July 15th, 2011, 11:23 AM
If you count playing awesome games that don't work on Ubuntu, I've wasted TONS of time on Windows.

GSF1200S
July 15th, 2011, 11:38 AM
Haha, is this a "lets defend Windows and attack Linux" thread? Its like people wait for these threads to pop up so they can stand in front of Bill Gates with a shield...

I understand the dominant narrative here is to stop attacking Windows since it is cliche and mostly overdone, but I find it ironic when people on a linux forum attack linux in the process.

All I know is this: when I used Windows, I didnt know anything about computers. Now, im the one my family turns to when they need help- Linux is what incited that growth in me. I have lost installs to viruses even running decent antivirus clients, I have had an NTFS filesystem become unreadable, and I have consistently experienced Windows slowing down over time (primarily only an issue if you constantly install/remove stuff). While this may have been my own incompetence as im sure many of you will believe, Windows never incited any growth in me- it never challenged me. While Ive had issues with Linux, never once has it left me stranded, never once has it been slow, and never once have I regretted the switch. Somewhat ironically, Linux ended up making me far more proficient at Windows than Windows did; perhaps my own lack of curiosity while using Windows, but the whole model of Windows isnt based on you knowing anything- its based on following.

Try to take what I say here as an offering of perspective honest to my own potential faults and NOT as a beating of the proverbial war drum.

ST3ALTHPSYCH0
July 15th, 2011, 11:47 AM
A full day to reinstall?!
I frequently rebuild discarded Dells to resell.... it takes less than 2 hours to install XP, fully upgrade (protip: use a disc with SP3 preinstalled/ lrn2slipstream (http://lifehacker.com/386526/slipstream-service-pack-3-into-your-windows-xp-installation-cd) ), and install the stuff everybody (everybody being the Average End User) wants (i.e. Java, flash, MSE, etc). It takes less than 3 even if I have to reinstall a working system and have to add data transfer to it.
And we're talking average 5 year old machines here, 2-2.6 GHz non HT P4, 333 MHz FSB, 512 MB RAM
Also, I work with varied machines, the trick is to get the install going and download the drivers on another machine (or save them to a flash drive before starting the process).
AV?: Avast is running in 3 MB of RAM, I would have no qualms putting it on a machine with only 256 MB (But if it was my machine, I'd spent the $30-60 to put a GB in it)
Defrag?: Protip: lrn2AuslogicsDiskDefrag. I even prefer it on Vista/7 It's faster and more efficient than the inbuilt defrag utility. It's schedulable, and it can be set to shutdown the machine when finished. So, you can start it, tick the box, and walk away if shutting down every day is your thing

I can't calculate the time I've spent fixing my various computers over the years (But I also can't differentiate after better than a decade which issues were OS related and which ones were Hardware related), but I can assure you that, since it has lead to a career in the field I love, that not a second of it was wasted.

Consider this: The time you put into fixing issues on your Linux machine may be a labor of love, but, when the rubber meets the road, Windows experience is far more valuable than Linux in the end user computing world.

Docaltmed
July 15th, 2011, 11:52 AM
I can tell you with a fair amount of precision:

Switching to Linux saves me 1 cup of coffee daily, in faster boots and fewer reboots. In Vista I was rebooting 6 times daily, and then the virus scanner has to do its thing, and the registry has to grind through its thing...bleah.

1 cup daily.

fancy_ninja
July 15th, 2011, 11:56 AM
Consider this: The time you put into fixing issues on your Linux machine may be a labor of love, but, when the rubber meets the road, Windows experience is far more valuable than Linux in the end user computing world.

"valuable" as you use it in your post is a relative term..not being ornery just saying..

UltraNEO*
July 15th, 2011, 12:03 PM
First of all:
Hahaha!!! I love this thread!

To give you an example of my windows life...

Startup windows, mess-about for a while... going no where fast!
Ain't too long before Windows update manager pops up saying it needs to download silly patches that they should of included, prompts me for a restart.

*thinks* 'oh i could do this on the mac'
*Shut down windows*

Nowadays I'm only in windows to play games...
I do all my other work (media designer) on the Mac.

Slowly I'm working out how to do those tasks in Linux. Need to work out what application I can use in Linux that'll do the same as After Effects. Ultimately, I'll switch to 100% Open Source computing...
Worst case scenario : I'll continue to work on the Mac for paid jobs due to a lack of professional software.

Gremlinzzz
July 15th, 2011, 12:06 PM
By wasted I mean the time you've spent in your life reinstalling things after a format, running antiviruses, system slowdowns and so forth that is unique to Windows and not Linux for the same computer.

I ask this because I'm amazed at the days accumulated just by using web accelerators. I think when we're talking about all this wasted Windows time, might some older users have wasted a year of their lives?

Would have to say none to wasted time.I found it to be a learning experience:D

GSF1200S
July 15th, 2011, 12:12 PM
Consider this: The time you put into fixing issues on your Linux machine may be a labor of love, but, when the rubber meets the road, Windows experience is far more valuable than Linux in the end user computing world.

Explain please. More valuable to who? To you financially as a man in a support role? Are you implying that my choice is somehow less valuable than a Windows user or vice versa? Who defines "value"? Value in a monetary sense, or in a moral sense? Isnt value heavily contingent on the person who chooses to judge it, and who are you to tell me what is valuable in that sense? (No hostility meant- just philosophical musings if you will).

I do not wish to come across as despondent with reality or unfairly defending Linux; I just dont understand why people seem to look down and indeed give up on it as a concept, when in fact it is our global model of commerce that chains its hands and chastises its approach to the computer experience.

Allow me to clarify one thing: I think the title of this post isnt really fair to Windows in that it encourages people to come in here and trash talk the OS. I dont think that any experience in life is a waste, including Windows. But this attitude.. the odious implicit hostility to Linux.. is why it will never become a dominant desktop solution. You take a product that is made by volunteers around the world, paid employees (kernel devs), and hobbyists that has MANY areas where it vastly outperforms another approach supported by the global model of commerce, billions of dollars in development, and an entire software ecosystem designed around its approach, then you talk down about how it wont play a video game or complain about its 6 month FREE release cycle (free to you- not free to the people who labor for its development).

Famicube64
July 15th, 2011, 12:36 PM
Since the beginning of windows, and windows became popular with windows 3.0, I have wasted at least a year, waiting for updates, reboots, virus scans and installations. But, then again, I would never have become so frustrated that I started looking for something better if it was not for these long hours of waiting.

An for Famicube64, If you have a separate root partition and home partition, a fresh install takes about 20 minutes plus adding the extra programs you use. My windows has to be reinstalled about once a year, despite all the maintenance(Because I do alot of program testing.) and this process takes a full working day every time.
I don't know what you do to your installations to warrant annual reinstalls but honestly I don't want to know.


Startup windows, mess-about for a while... going no where fast!
Ain't too long before Windows update manager pops up saying it needs to download silly patches that they should of included, prompts me for a restart.
Are you trying to tell me that security patches are "silly"? And that Windows is the only OS available that updates periodically for security? Maybe these things would be included on the disk if time machines were invented, but sorry to say they're not. And last I checked Ubuntu updates prompt me for a restart quite often since they feel the need to include every single kernel update available.

fuduntu
July 15th, 2011, 01:13 PM
By wasted I mean the time you've spent in your life reinstalling things after a new release on that 6th month, compiling kernel modules, fighting kernel panics and so forth that is unique to Linux and not Windows for the same computer.

I ask this because I'm amazed at the days accumulated just by using make. I think when we're talking about all this wasted Linux time, might some older users have wasted a year of their lives?

Fixed that for you. See how the same argument works in both directions, it kind of makes it pointless and unimportant. :D

Aquix
July 15th, 2011, 01:15 PM
There are some cool thing you can do with windows, like using nLite and vLite to set up a gaming rig. My record is a 119mb xp including winrar and firefox :)
For me the main point is not to be lost on any os.

TheSuperSteve
July 15th, 2011, 01:18 PM
Less than I would have spent reinstalling Ubuntu every six months.

This a million times. Heck, i think i'll tweet this on twitter for how true this is. Facebook even.

el_koraco
July 15th, 2011, 01:20 PM
About five hours trying to fix dll hell caused by a brilliant OEM Vista install.

aquarius18
July 15th, 2011, 01:24 PM
Same.

Only if Win doesn't doze :lolflag:

ST3ALTHPSYCH0
July 15th, 2011, 02:14 PM
Explain please. More valuable to who? To you financially as a man in a support role? Are you implying that my choice is somehow less valuable than a Windows user or vice versa? Who defines "value"? Value in a monetary sense, or in a moral sense? Isnt value heavily contingent on the person who chooses to judge it, and who are you to tell me what is valuable in that sense? (No hostility meant- just philosophical musings if you will).

I do not wish to come across as despondent with reality or unfairly defending Linux; I just dont understand why people seem to look down and indeed give up on it as a concept, when in fact it is our global model of commerce that chains its hands and chastises its approach to the computer experience.

Allow me to clarify one thing: I think the title of this post isnt really fair to Windows in that it encourages people to come in here and trash talk the OS. I dont think that any experience in life is a waste, including Windows. But this attitude.. the odious implicit hostility to Linux.. is why it will never become a dominant desktop solution. You take a product that is made by volunteers around the world, paid employees (kernel devs), and hobbyists that has MANY areas where it vastly outperforms another approach supported by the global model of commerce, billions of dollars in development, and an entire software ecosystem designed around its approach, then you talk down about how it wont play a video game or complain about its 6 month FREE release cycle (free to you- not free to the people who labor for its development).

Yes, to me, now, financially. That, however, was not my aim when I was learning those things. I have been many thing by necessity of a lack of funds (auto mechanic, plumber, framer), and now, in the computer realm, I use that experience to make money.... albeit at roughly 1/3 the cost of other shops.

My attitude towards Linux is not why it will never become a dominant force on the desktop. Rather, it is the overall development attitude of Linux that will always prevent that. What do I meant, you ask? Simply the attitude of "release by x date" or "WorksForMe" or "That bug doesn't effect me". Before you claim my total hatred of all things Linux, click the link in my sig with the funny name. You'll find my alias listed as a dev there, and I would LOVE to see some sort of dominance for us. Sadly, we are limited by the upstream, and we have run across MULTIPLE issues that we can trace up the stream, where the big fish have basically told all the End Users complaining about the issue to GTFO.

I like the concept of free software (but I mean free as in doesn't cost me a penny.... I don't believe that software falls into any category of morality.... jpegs on the other hand can indicate morality), it's the implementation that I don't like.

EDIT: If I come across strong, it's only because for every level headed individual, there are multiple unbalanced ones screaming "DOWN WITH <insert software manufacturer here>". I'm a firm believer in using what works for you. If it's Mac, use Mac. If it's Windows, use Windows. If it's Linux, Hurd, BSD..... you get my point. But don't evangelize by using half truths, or blatant falsehoods (not aimed at my quoted text, rather, in general). Yes, Linux may be more resistant to traditional viruses, but those are no longer the primary concern in malware. Rather we see more and more "AntiVirus 2011"s and "MacDefender"s. I actually possess the knowledge of process to code one of these for Linux. These types of programs bypass virtually all AV programs, and OS permissions due to their coding nature and the fact that they install to ~/ (or it's relative equivalent). As such, as everyone tries to convert their Grandparents. Parents/ Siblings/ Teachers/ whomever to Linux, keep in mind that they would still be subject to these type of attacks if anyone bothered to code them for Linux.

buddig
July 15th, 2011, 04:34 PM
I don't calculate wasted time. When time is gone, it's gone, and I try to learn of it.
I have learned a lot of Dos, Windows 3.1 and a little of windows XP.
The newer Windows is so complex, that I in most cases guess what happens. :)
What I have learned in the Dos and Win 3.11 years, I feel, that I can use now in Linux,
and continue leraning.
Yesterday I helped another person to optimate her Windows XP, and most of 1 hour was time
with reboot, cleen up, shut down etc.
This Time I spend with managing my thoughts, plan the future and get ideas and notice what to do later.
Now I have disabled Windows Update om my home computers, because I use Ubuntu,
and if I boot Windows once a month, there will be a lot of updates (waste time) :)
Henning

UltraNEO*
July 15th, 2011, 04:37 PM
Are you trying to tell me that security patches are "silly"? And that Windows is the only OS available that updates periodically for security? Maybe these things would be included on the disk if time machines were invented, but sorry to say they're not. And last I checked Ubuntu updates prompt me for a restart quite often since they feel the need to include every single kernel update available.

Updates ain't silly, just their timing. What bugs me most is the way windows does them... Sometimes I'll be there doing something rather important. Then wham! The entire system will restart without prior warning, applications are forced to close without saving, causing me to lose work!! Maybe I don't know enough about windows to change it's settings. At least on the Mac, I can postpone it indefinitely, until such time I'm ready to restart/shutdown... also most security patches don't need the system to be restarted.

ST3ALTHPSYCH0
July 15th, 2011, 05:16 PM
Updates ain't silly, just their timing. What bugs me most is the way windows does them... Sometimes I'll be there doing something rather important. Then wham! The entire system will restart without prior warning, applications are forced to close without saving, causing me to lose work!! Maybe I don't know enough about windows to change it's settings. At least on the Mac, I can postpone it indefinitely, until such time I'm ready to restart/shutdown... also most security patches don't need the system to be restarted.

Vista and 7 allow you to tell WU to leave you alone about it. Then you can just restart at you convenience.

Famicube64
July 15th, 2011, 05:41 PM
Updates ain't silly, just their timing. What bugs me most is the way windows does them... Sometimes I'll be there doing something rather important. Then wham! The entire system will restart without prior warning, applications are forced to close without saving, causing me to lose work!! Maybe I don't know enough about windows to change it's settings. At least on the Mac, I can postpone it indefinitely, until such time I'm ready to restart/shutdown... also most security patches don't need the system to be restarted.
That's BS. Windows Update will always ask you if you want to reboot and Windows 7 (I don't know about Vista) even gives you the option to postpone the restart and remind you later. If an update reboots your computer automatically and without notifying you then it's (probably) due to a third party software updater.

Edit: Also, you could just tell Windows Update to notify you and not automatically download or install updates. Imagine that!

Edit 2: Not only that, but it's clearly labeled how to change the update settings in the control panel. If you had just looked before complaining about it.

ScionicSpectre
July 15th, 2011, 05:57 PM
Days. Days on issues that were completely maintenance-related. And that's just on my own computer- include all the relatives and friends who can't take care of their own installations and aren't willing to learn how, and I'm sure I've spent at least an entire month on Windows' inefficiencies.

As Linux becomes more and more efficient to work with, I could probably say the same for how much time I wasted typing before I started using my mind to write. XD

To be fair, Windows is getting better, although much more slowly than Microsoft's customers should be willing to expect. Windows 8 provides an opportunity for Microsoft to make a clear cut from the past, and I hope they do so for the sake of everyone who is tied into using their OS, either by fear, a lack of awareness of alternatives, or some work-related compatibility issues.

I think there will come a time in the near future where there will be a bare minimum expectation of security, speed, and stability in an OS, regardless of the user's philosophy on software. And Windows is going to have to continually meet that standard, even if they're a decade late on some things.

I wish Microsoft luck in making their next OS something compelling and useful. I long for the day that Windows can be as secure, fast, stable, and friendly to use as Linux (I'm referring to package managers, options for single-clicking, and other little refinements we enjoy as Linux users). Then, we might start having the essential, important comparisons, rather than simply scoffing at the other OS's inefficiencies. We might actually start talking about openness.

akand074
July 15th, 2011, 06:14 PM
I think the most time I used to spend in Windows is hours and hours looking for either free software, or having to install/remove so many random software from random websites in search of a software to do something so simple. It's not that I don't want to pay for software, it's that I usually go between tonnes of software before I find one that works the way I want, and don't want to have to purchase software just to try it, or have cut down trials with the function I want cut off. But mainly the inefficiency and insecurity of it in comparison to the repositories.

ScionicSpectre
July 15th, 2011, 06:29 PM
The degree of difficulty in finding useful software on Windows is part of the reason why people stick to stuff you can buy in stores (games, Adobe, Autodesk, Office). From what I can tell, OS X Lion and Windows 8 will have 'stores' to go to so people won't have to scour the internet for unsafe applications on those platforms any longer, which will be a huge plus if they allow open software, and give it a category of its own.

I think the reason why some of us seem geeky isn't because we use difficult software, but because we use different software from everyone else, including other Linux users. Most Windows and OS X users will have a similar set of base applications, while we have a lot more variety to choose from, and a lot more interoperability.

If you can afford to embrace open standards, you tend to have a much more worry-free experience. Now, if only our businesses took open formats and specifications as seriously as the web has.

Erik1984
July 15th, 2011, 06:52 PM
On my Parents XP install I had to do some repairing work also on my XP laptop a few time. My last Vista install played nice, only a little maintenance required sometimes. However I think for a long period it would add up to a few days most. I've spend more time messing around with Ubuntu I guess (looking up commands on google and these forums), but that's mainly because I want to. Also I did not visit forums like these when I used only Windows so I'm wasting even more time now :P

CharlesA
July 15th, 2011, 07:14 PM
1. Install Windows
2. Install whatever software you need
3. Do updates
4. Image drive
5. ???
6. Profit

I've "wasted" a bit of time doing updates after a new install, but that's usually only if I get a new machine, since I just image the drive after everything is said and done and leave it at that.

"Wasted" cuz I do other stuff while the machine is updating. ;)

I've probably wasted the same amount of time on *nix, doing updates or admin tasks.

linuxyogi
July 15th, 2011, 07:37 PM
By wasted I mean the time you've spent in your life reinstalling things after a format, running antiviruses, system slowdowns and so forth that is unique to Windows and not Linux for the same computer.


I have used Win98 & after that Win XP on my roommate's PC.

Both were highly insecure. Its not only viruses, but spyware was another major security issue that we faced.

He had to reinstall every 3-4 months because of some problematic virus . Both AVG & Avast were tried (one at a time) but that PC almost never completed a year without a formatting/reinstalling.

AFAIK system slow downs are caused by fragmentation of of the Fat32 / NTFS filesystem. We (almost) don't have that problem here.




If some people don't like upgrading/reinstalling their Linux distro, why not use a rolling release ?

KiwiNZ
July 15th, 2011, 07:52 PM
I have used Win98 & after that Win XP on my roommate's PC.

Both were highly insecure. Its not only viruses, but spyware was another major security issue that we faced.

He had to reinstall every 3-4 months because of some problematic virus . Both AVG & Avast were tried (one at a time) but that PC almost never completed a year without a formatting/reinstalling.

AFAIK system slow downs are caused by fragmentation of of the Fat32 / NTFS filesystem. We (almost) don't have that problem here.





If some people don't like upgrading/reinstalling their Linux distro, why not use a rolling release ?


Constant reinstalling because of Virus,Malware/spyware is not the fault of the OS, it's the fault of the user and the usage habits.

In my sandpit I have test machine that has XP on it, it was installed circa 2005.

Grifulkin
July 15th, 2011, 08:00 PM
KiwiNZ winz this thread.

PuddingKnife
July 15th, 2011, 08:02 PM
I use Ubuntu exclusively at home.

However, I did grow up and learn to hate Windows from a young age, since about Windows 95 or so.

It was always something I put up with because I had to. Back then, computers=Windows. Obviously I had a lot of learning to do, but it was Windows XPs last crash on my laptop that prompted me to do some research; that, in essence, is how I discovered Linux, and Ubuntu more specifically. I started with 8.10 and haven't looked back.

With that said, I recently received an upgrade to Windows 7 on my work computer. Its fast, fairly attractive/shiny/nice animations, and its done everything I've needed so far. XP didn't, and that's why I asked for an upgrade. Honestly, I kind of like it. I'm not going to go home and switch my Ubuntu PCs to Windows 7, but at least I'm not wincing at work anymore.

To each their own :)

Mmmbopdowedop
July 15th, 2011, 08:04 PM
I haven't wasted more time on Windows than I have Linux, it's about equal.

I format my computer every now and again to try new Distro's, I never delete my /home partition, that's probably what keeps me sane. I do have various folders of crap inside folders named crap inside folders named crap that I just cannot be bothered to seive through.

Reading forums, is, in my eyes, a waste of time, but I do it, in Windows, why?
I'm not really sure, it's intruiging (sometimes), educational (maybe), fun (not really), but I do enjoy some of them as a pass-time once every few days for 30 mins or so, then it's back to another time-waster. Mainly I do it because it's too much trouble to reboot (for me).

Seems all I do is waste time, as do many people, life's over-rated.

uRock
July 15th, 2011, 08:05 PM
I don't use an AV. Windows security essentials and common sense is all I need.

+1 MS Security Essentials is great and if you leave the PC on and schedule scans to run when you are away, then there is no time wasted scanning. The only times I have ever run a reinstall was after trashing my own system while messing with settings(and not keeping restore points).

As for Ubuntu and upgrades. I don't do dirty installs. They take two or more hours to run, while it only takes me about thirty minutes to run a clean install, then run updates and install all of my needed programs.

I think I have wasted more time in Linux, than I have in Windows, but the time wasted was for my benefit of learning how things work and how they don't.

nothingspecial
July 15th, 2011, 08:13 PM
None, because the first computer I ever had had linux installed and so have all the others.

Actually, I've bought a couple with windows preinstalled and messed about for an hour or so. Then I realised I didn't know what I was doing and installed linux instead.

linuxyogi
July 15th, 2011, 08:16 PM
Constant reinstalling because of Virus,Malware/spyware is not the fault of the OS, it's the fault of the user and the usage habits.

In my sandpit I have test machine that has XP on it, it was installed circa 2005.

By "usage habits" you mean the kind of web sites we used to visit ?

If that's the case, you cant expect a person to change his browsing habits coz the OS he uses is prone to viruses/spyware.

I can maintain a Windows installation for years but that's not really practical.

I visit similar sites with Ubuntu (p***):-$, no issues.

KiwiNZ
July 15th, 2011, 08:24 PM
By "usage habits" you mean the kind of web sites we used to visit ?

If that's the case, you cant expect a person to change his browsing habits coz the OS he uses is prone to viruses/spyware.

I can maintain a Windows installation for years but that's not really practical.

I visit similar sites with Ubuntu (p***):-$, no issues.


You can drive a car with out changing the oil, checking the water etc etc if and when it breaks it is not the fault of the car or its maker, it's user error.

GSF1200S
July 15th, 2011, 09:11 PM
You can drive a car with out changing the oil, checking the water etc etc if and when it breaks it is not the fault of the car or its maker, it's user error.

Perhaps, but some cars are tougher than others. Try comparing a Honda Civic with a Chrysler product in terms if maintenance; compare an Arch linux install running LXDE with using Windows in terms of maintenance. You run pacman -Syu once every two weeks.. (I admit a KDE install or an Arch system with alot of packages could get far more complicated). Further, if the car encourages you to work on it by virtue of its design, is that not a benefit in terms of its maintenance?

I agree Kiwi- it IS user error, but it is important to consider that the software ecosystem of Windows does not encourage one to become proficient in it's maintenance. Beyond that, your usage habits do have to be modified.. I am the first one to admit that my usage habits probably are the sole reason I had issues with Windows, but despite efforts to understand Windows (at a deeper level like I do with Linux) and protect myself, things would slip by me.. Noone intends to hose their install, or does something thinking this will be the end of their Windows installation..

akand074
July 16th, 2011, 12:35 AM
Constant reinstalling because of Virus,Malware/spyware is not the fault of the OS, it's the fault of the user and the usage habits.

In my sandpit I have test machine that has XP on it, it was installed circa 2005.

Although I do agree with you. Some things in Windows baffles me. Like those fake "antivirus" malware that my sisters keep getting somehow. I go into the registry and wipe it and that virus actually overwrites the registry key that controls ALL .exe files. Basically it got over written so that everytime you open anything at all in your computer, it also/only opens the anti-virus. Why on earth does anyone have access to that for any reason? Much less random third party software. I mean, maybe give the user with administrative privileges access but even then why would any user touch that for any reason?

Also, there are a number of malware that install without the user even knowing, or directly/indirectly installing it. It just automatically installs and runs in the background without any visual feedback at all. Yes, you can blame it on the user for going to an unsafe site (even though my sisters insist they never did...) but why would the OS allow that to happen, ever?

So basically what I'm saying is that although I do agree completely that a computer is only as secure as the user that is using it, and good practice does prevent this from happening. But there are some serious OS flaws in terms of security. Especially XP. Windows 7 seems to have improved pretty significantly (especially if you use the annoying and badly implemented user account control), it still allows programs to touch registry keys that it really shouldn't be allowed to touch. I don't even know why 3rd party software is even allowed to touch the registry, that should be all controlled by the OS.

wolfen69
July 16th, 2011, 12:44 AM
I wouldn't call my time spent on windows as wasted. I learned a lot from fixing windows machines over the years and have made a lot of money from it. Now I know 2 OS's very well. ;)

Old_Grey_Wolf
July 16th, 2011, 01:36 AM
I use whatever OS is needed for the task I want to accomplish. I have used Microsoft Windows, Linux based distributions, and Mac OS. They are not interchangeable. Each requires the user to do some sort of maintenance. If the time spent maintaining one of them is needed to accomplish the needed task then it is not wasted time.

GSF1200S
July 16th, 2011, 03:59 AM
Yes, to me, now, financially. That, however, was not my aim when I was learning those things. I have been many thing by necessity of a lack of funds (auto mechanic, plumber, framer), and now, in the computer realm, I use that experience to make money.... albeit at roughly 1/3 the cost of other shops.
Ok. So it applies to you now, but what about others beside you? Im not trying to come on strong either- im just trying to understand your angle here..


My attitude towards Linux is not why it will never become a dominant force on the desktop. Rather, it is the overall development attitude of Linux that will always prevent that. What do I meant, you ask? Simply the attitude of "release by x date" or "WorksForMe" or "That bug doesn't effect me". Before you claim my total hatred of all things Linux, click the link in my sig with the funny name. You'll find my alias listed as a dev there, and I would LOVE to see some sort of dominance for us. Sadly, we are limited by the upstream, and we have run across MULTIPLE issues that we can trace up the stream, where the big fish have basically told all the End Users complaining about the issue to GTFO.
I dont agree here. While I have seen exactly as you suggest, I have also submitted "wishes" to various projects that were implemented within weeks. Exaile, KDE, and Rhythmbox are examples.. I think when you do a cross-section of a developer base as diverse as the Linux world, you are going to have both types of developer. Even assuming you are right, consider WHERE the vast majority of our software comes from- it comes from people who make it in their spare time and are not REWARDED financially for their contributions. While it is easy to say that they made that choice, consider developers need to eat, and capitalism doesnt allow them to dedicate the resources (time) they might want to invest to deal with some of the issues to which you refer. It is our global model of commerce that limits the capability of Linux, and the "attitude" I talk about (which wasnt directed at you; I quoted you to qualify the "value" aspect above- my primary issue is sarcastic, condescending, and inflammatory remarks against Linux made by ignorant people) IS indicative of what that global model of commerce creates in people (in terms of perspective). Even WITH this limitation, Linux is far more capable in many ways, with its primary limitation being the capitalistically motivated software ecosystem of today, and the secondary limitation being, hypothetically, the situation in which you describe.


I like the concept of free software (but I mean free as in doesn't cost me a penny.... I don't believe that software falls into any category of morality.... jpegs on the other hand can indicate morality), it's the implementation that I don't like.
Fair enough.. I like the overall implementation just fine. Any hierarchy of control (upstream vs. downstream) is going to have its issues, but when a product receiving VASTLY less resources both in terms of time and financially manages to compete as well as Linux does, I think things are working quite well. Can they improve? Absolutely. I, however, completely disagree with you in terms of morality in software; software should be free to create its own experience, but it should not push its own popularity through manipulations of computer manufacturers (Windows) as opposed to it succeeding on function. This is tantamount to force, and force is an attempt to override logic for some end which in this case is profit even at the expense of function/design.


EDIT: If I come across strong, it's only because for every level headed individual, there are multiple unbalanced ones screaming "DOWN WITH <insert software manufacturer here>". I'm a firm believer in using what works for you. If it's Mac, use Mac. If it's Windows, use Windows. If it's Linux, Hurd, BSD..... you get my point.
Exactly, hence my dismay at all the people firing volleys at Linux without considering how their very attitude is conducive to the software ecosystem which creates their very problems.. The point here is, Linux can be almost anything you want it to be- it can act like a Mac, it can act like Windows, and it can act like NOTHING else. Further, if Microsoft made Office for Linux or Mac made iTunes for Linux, Linux would run these applications just fine. Its the fact that they dont that causes people to complain about the FAILURES OF LINUX, when in fact the FAILURE in terms of what they desire not being fulfilled should be placed solely on the shoulders of the profit-motive at the heart of contemporary society; the concept of monopoly and of domination in a fashion that stifles choice is a large part of why we fight wars, why people in South America and Africa starve while others buy cocaine and sleep with hookers, and why Linux struggles to overcome the force levied against it by corporations who view it as a "disease" to their power despite it not competing financially but only in terms of function.


But don't evangelize by using half truths, or blatant falsehoods (not aimed at my quoted text, rather, in general). Yes, Linux may be more resistant to traditional viruses, but those are no longer the primary concern in malware. Rather we see more and more "AntiVirus 2011"s and "MacDefender"s. I actually possess the knowledge of process to code one of these for Linux. These types of programs bypass virtually all AV programs, and OS permissions due to their coding nature and the fact that they install to ~/ (or it's relative equivalent). As such, as everyone tries to convert their Grandparents. Parents/ Siblings/ Teachers/ whomever to Linux, keep in mind that they would still be subject to these type of attacks if anyone bothered to code them for Linux.
Anything made by man can be hacked by man, I agree. That said, as you have said, Linux IS more resistant to traditional viruses which overtly threaten the operating system in terms of its function. Sure, social engineering is the most effective form of malware/virus/spyware known, since the operating system will run a program coded for it- if the program happens to have spyware built in and the user CANNOT SEE THE SOURCE (or at least have others who know what to look for seeing the source), then Linux will be compromised. However, consider that in this case, Linux's software ecosystem where software is maintained by the distro developer and released through official channels GREATLY reduces this risk. I envision a potential future where particular websites (webupd8 for instance- Andrew is a great guy) could be sanctioned by the COMMUNITY/DISTRO-DEVELOPERS as safe sources of otherwise unusual repos and OS modification. Unlike Windows, which is basically anarchy after its installed, Linux has a social framework that could be utilized to fight those threats of which you speak. My 17 year old cousin, 25 year old friend, 52 year old mother, and my 75 year old grandfather all use Linux, and the official sources of software distribution for their respective distro (all variants of Ubuntu)- not one has had a crash or failure since they started. If results are truly what you are concerned with, there ya go..

As a closing, words capitalized are for emphasis in the particular sentence and not my attempt to yell; further, I do not mean to be hostile, but standing ground is what nearly every entity subject to prejudice must do in order to overcome..

HermanAB
July 16th, 2011, 12:00 PM
Wow, I have wasted years of my life on Windows crud, but for a couple years, Windows bugs were paying the bills...

So, was all that time wasted? YES! Nowadays I just tell people that I don't do Windows. There are only two people I help with it: The wife and the inlaw.

It would be less hassle for me to move them to Linux, but they are farm girls and really aren't computer savvy at all, so I don't want to break whatever little they do know how to do. They can start a kerosene tractor and plow a field with it, but a computer...
;)

mkendall
July 16th, 2011, 03:43 PM
By wasted I mean the time you've spent in your life reinstalling things after a format, running antiviruses, system slowdowns and so forth that is unique to Windows and not Linux for the same computer.

Including the time spent rebooting as a first step in troubleshooting because half the time that fixes the problem?

UltraNEO*
July 16th, 2011, 03:57 PM
That's BS. Windows Update will always ask you if you want to reboot and Windows 7 (I don't know about Vista) even gives you the option to postpone the restart and remind you later. If an update reboots your computer automatically and without notifying you then it's (probably) due to a third party software updater.

To be honest, I'm not sure it is third-party software causing it, I only have Adobe CS5 and Steam installed (along with loads of games). Even so, it shouldn't be installing system updates without my knowledge, should it?


Edit: Also, you could just tell Windows Update to notify you and not automatically download or install updates. Imagine that!


Edit 2: Not only that, but it's clearly labeled how to change the update settings in the control panel. If you had just looked before complaining about it.

Thanks.. I discovered this option yesterday..
Dunno why it's not part of the initial system setup process I don't know.

CharlesA
July 16th, 2011, 04:06 PM
To be honest, I'm not sure it is third-party software causing it, I only have Adobe CS5 and Steam installed (along with loads of games). Even so, it shouldn't be installing system updates without my knowledge, should it?

I think it's set to install the updated automagically around 3am if you choose the "use recommended settings" during setup.


Thanks.. I discovered this option yesterday..
Dunno why it's not part of the initial system setup process I don't know.

It asks you during setup, but if you've got a machine that came preinstall with Windows, I don't know if it asks you to set it up or not.

SilverDragon
July 16th, 2011, 04:30 PM
I don't use an AV. Windows security essentials and common sense is all I need.

I thought Windows Security Essentials was AV(Anti-virus) software? I use it and it's lightweight and doesn't affect system performance but isn't it still anti-virus software?

aysiu
July 16th, 2011, 04:31 PM
I don't really know what people are talking about here.

On Windows, I don't defragment or do virus scans, and there is no sluggishness on my computer. In fact, it's quite snappy.

Same for Mac OS X, same for Ubuntu.

I use all three platforms, and I enjoy using all three platforms (Windows is the one I enjoy the least of the three, but I still enjoy it).

So for my own personal use, I don't "waste" any time. But I also recently started working officially in tech support at my school, and I can tell you a lot of other people waste time in Windows. My feeling is that they'd probably be "wasting" time in Linux and Mac, too, though.

These are people who are afraid of computers. They use these machines 8-10 hours per day and yet are afraid to use them. Imagine a truck driver afraid of driving, a pop singer afraid of singing, or a politician afraid of making speeches--that's what a lot of office workers are like. If you're afraid, you aren't efficient. You aren't going to figure out general principles. You're just going to memorize steps. You aren't going to find new and better ways to accomplish the same task. You're just going to keep doing whatever long way you initially thought of. If a pop-up appears, you'll get scared instead of actually reading it what it says and acting appropriately.

I can't tell you how many times I've seen pop-ups in a program and then seen people just click to make it go away instead of checking the box that says "Don't show this again" (this is for programs, not on a website). Then the next time they launch the same program, they get annoyed and immediately click away. Rinse, repeat.

mamamia88
July 16th, 2011, 05:00 PM
By wasted I mean the time you've spent in your life reinstalling things after a format, running antiviruses, system slowdowns and so forth that is unique to Windows and not Linux for the same computer.

I ask this because I'm amazed at the days accumulated just by using web accelerators. I think when we're talking about all this wasted Windows time, might some older users have wasted a year of their lives?

Well all the stuff you mentioned there are pretty much all able to be automated. I set all that stuff to run when I'm not going to be around my computer. Also, I don't really worry about malware because, I run my browser in a sandbox and make sure all exes are safe before running them. Don't install a app that you've never heard of before without doing a little research. Also, I never reinstall windows, if maintained correctly there shouldn't be any need.

aysiu
July 16th, 2011, 05:04 PM
If you do spend a lot of time reinstalling Windows, I would recommend this instead: Install Windows fresh.
Install all the programs you like fresh.
Install all Windows updates and service packs.
Use Clonezilla to clone your installation to an external hard drive.
Use Windows and regularly back up your personal files to an external hard drive.
When you feel the need to spend a full day reinstalling and configuring, just use Clonezilla to clone your fresh installation and then copy your personal files back. Clonezilla takes about 20-30 minutes, depending on the size of your installation (and the size of the cloned image is based on the used space, not the total hard drive size).

CharlesA
July 16th, 2011, 05:50 PM
If you do spend a lot of time reinstalling Windows, I would recommend this instead: Install Windows fresh.
Install all the programs you like fresh.
Install all Windows updates and service packs.
Use Clonezilla to clone your installation to an external hard drive.
Use Windows and regularly back up your personal files to an external hard drive.
When you feel the need to spend a full day reinstalling and configuring, just use Clonezilla to clone your fresh installation and then copy your personal files back. Clonezilla takes about 20-30 minutes, depending on the size of your installation (and the size of the cloned image is based on the used space, not the total hard drive size).

Excellent idea. I do that and it does save time, when/if you have to reinstall.

aysiu is right when they say that some people who use computers for 8-10 hours a day are afraid of them - I deal with people like that all the time at work, they tend to be afraid of breaking something if they do something different from what way they were told or shown - possibly taking the "long route" instead of using a shortcut.

You can tell them of a different way of doing something and yet they'll still go about using the way they have always used. I can tell someone the correct way of doing something and they go back to doing their way which takes twice as long and can cause problems. =/